- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Politics
Video: American Family Association Says Obama would Have Lost to Romney if He were White
On the American Family Association's 'Today's Issues' radio show today, guest R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr., founder of The American Spectator, said that his recent book 'The Death of Liberalism' was still correct because President Obama was not a liberal, but a socialist.
Tyrrell said that the "blowout" 2010 midterm elections were proof that America is a conservative nation and predicted another huge win for conservatives in the 2014 midterms, reports RightWingWatch.org.
American Family Association radio host Tim Wildmon added: "If it had been a white president running against Mitt Romney, he loses. I think the racial dynamic played a large part in President Obama winning."
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Comments
Have heard lots about it
Have heard lots about it http://www.venkotech.com
Higher car manufacturing
Higher car manufacturing standards were credited for the decrease in deaths in car crashes, as well as stricter penalties for underage drinking and failing to wear seat belts. http://www.kamagrafx.com/
Whats really tragic about
Whats really tragic about @carol and her FUX news propaganda is she probably believes their nonsense! I remember Archie Bunker republican types of the 80's but since Rupert Murdoch brought his BS propaganda machine to the USA the gullibility of republicans has gone 10 fold. @carol I understand you perfectly you type out republican BS just to get attention but making a fool out of yourself isn't the type of attention you should crave. Your pathetic band of idiots lost another election by over 5 MILLION votes! thats reality sweetheart! your earthly political savours keep getting their butts kicked! see honey bunch GOD is good and thats why the gop is not going to exist much longer lol so enjoy your republican freak show because america is finally waking up to the party of CONservatives!
Savannah, A huge percentage
Savannah,
A huge percentage of the military (80%+ who vote almost universally republican)didn't get to vote in this or the last presidential election. The last election saw democrats' refusal to get their absentee ballots out to them around the world and then disallowing their ballots when they came in marginally late. They petitioned for the earlier send out of their ballots so they would be on time coming back and this was denied!
So, why is it usually always the "poor disenfranchised" democrat voted who is prejudiced against??? No one seemed to care about are brave American soldiers who fight for us and keep America safe and their vote...why?
PS Affirmative action has been an abysmal failure (just look at the stats on those who have been pushed beyond their level of abilities...research is all over the internet). I show as evidence Mr. Villaraigosa (mayor of LA). He used AA to attend undergrad and Law School and failed to pass the bar in 4 tries...clearly pushed past his mental capabilities and a lousy mayor to boot!
PSS I merely quoted Marx when he called the "lemmings" in the former Soviet Union for blindly following him, "useful idiots". The BO movement mimics this slice of history and historical context allows us to keep us from mimicking its failures. Many have used this comparison...I am not original in this observation. Far grander and more lofty professionals than I have used this precise reference.
PSSS My reference to fact only not being the sole determinant, had to do with sociology and philosophy. NOT opinion as you seem to have concluded about my statement, but evaluation and interpretation of fact in line with a historical perspective. There is so much written about the usury of minorities around the world. From apartheid in S. Africa to the democrats of today in America...it is WELL DOCUMENTED (as I mentioned Star Parker and also Michael Hutchinson of Cape Town) and this abuse is pervasive. I have lived in and written about S. Africa so I have a much different view of this than the average American. And, by the way, most attempts to "help" these disenfranchised have failed miserably. There is no need for this...equal opportunity is all that is required, not "equalization" of living circumstances!
@Carol, Regarding your
@Carol,
Regarding your statistic that 80% of military men and women vote Republican, I wondered if you are sure of that number?
According to an October 2012 article in Time, the number does not even seem to be close to accurate.
http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/05/does-the-military-vote-really-lean-republican/
I did briefly scan an article that addressed the failure of the Pentagon to adequately implement the Military Voter Protection Act. While I intend to read more about it later, if in fact there was not adequate implementation, then I agree that is a serious issue.
According to the executive director of the Military Voter Protection Project, partisan politics did not seem to be a factor. "'The military voting issue has existed long before the current administration. I simply don’t see any politics at play, Eversole said."
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/09/military-voting-assistance-inspector-general-report-090512w/
Very little of carol's
Very little of carol's meanderings are accurate. Accuracy and truth are not high on her list when she posts.
The right/wrong wing is desperate and desperate folks are willing to throw anything & everything out there to see if it sticks. It is very sad that the once Grand Old Party has become simple gop. It's called the faux mews syndrome.
80% of the military didn't
80% of the military didn't get to vote? You're full of it.
Can you explain why, under Reagan and Bush I, every absentee ballot I submitted was thrown out? Was there an evil Republican conspiracy? Or just an incompetent military mail system?
Pull your head out of your backside and try seeing the light.
@aveteran How do you know
@aveteran
How do you know they were thrown out? (I'm not doubting you, I am just curious how one knows. I've never done an absentee ballot.)
I received letters stating
I received letters stating they were rejected.
:( Did they say why?
:(
Did they say why?
Ironically, in Florida, what
Ironically, in Florida, what disenfranchised military voters the most was the Republic Governor's purge of the voting rolls.
The margin of victory was sufficiently high enough that any missed military voting would not have mattered. Before election officials "call a state" they must account for all votes that are yet to be counted. For example, consider this article about Ohio:
http://www.pewstates.org/research/analysis/ohio-military-and-overseas-voting-85899425753
Obama's margin was much greater than the number of military votes. You are as usual trying to push forth more right wing mythology.
Democrats abusing blacks... very funny and sad and 1984 type doublespeak. The claims of "abuse" are made by those who wish to eliminate the social safety net, claiming that the safety net is what holds minorities back.
If you actually knew anything, you might actually do some homework. Do you know which states do the best on standardized tests, have the highest high school graduation rates, and the best attendance in college? The states that spend the most money per pupil and have for decades. Money invested overnight has no impact whatsoever, but places where schools have been well funded from kindergarten through 12th grade and have been well funded for multiple cohorts, students do better.
What conservatives and crazies like you don't like to hear is that you have it exactly wrong. We actually need more public investment and not less, shifting money away from things like the military and into things like education and programs to help ALL people escape poverty. "Equal Opportunity" is not enough.
Carol, You said, "A huge
Carol,
You said, "A huge percentage of the military (80%+ who vote almost universally republican)didn't get to vote in this or the last presidential election. The last election saw democrats' refusal to get their absentee ballots out to them around the world and then disallowing their ballots when they came in marginally late. They petitioned for the earlier send out of their ballots so they would be on time coming back and this was denied!"
If you are referring to Ohio, the issue was complex. Rather than try to summarize, I'll offer a link to an explanation.
http://factcheck.org/2012/08/obama-not-trying-to-curb-military-early-voting/
If you feel Factcheck.org is biased, there are other sites that offer similar explanations.
Just to clarify, we were discussing African American civil rights and whether or not Republicans throughout history were the only ones to address these issues. That is why I mentioned the GOP's attempts to disenfranchise the poor and minorities - as one example to demonstrate that the GOP were far from the only party in history to support African American civil rights.
Let's assume your comment about the Democrats' restriction of military voting rights were completely true. Why would my not mentioning that have any bearing on what we were discussing? If I felt it was accurate, of course I would be outraged. I do not support equal rights only for those who think and look like me.
You went on to say, "PS Affirmative action has been an abysmal failure (just look at the stats on those who have been pushed beyond their level of abilities...research is all over the internet). I show as evidence Mr. Villaraigosa (mayor of LA). He used AA to attend undergrad and Law School and failed to pass the bar in 4 tries...clearly pushed past his mental capabilities and a lousy mayor to boot!"
I appreciate that it is your opinion that Affirmative Action has been an abysmal failure. That is, however, not necessarily an opinion shared by the scores of people helped by AA. As I said, there is no doubt the policy has it's negative aspects, but it has also helped level the playing field for scores of people. Is there a better way? No doubt it could be improved. It's hardly an abysmal failure.
You went on to say, "PSS I merely quoted Marx when he called the "lemmings" in the former Soviet Union for blindly following him, "useful idiots". The BO movement mimics this slice of history and historical context allows us to keep us from mimicking its failures. Many have used this comparison...I am not original in this observation. Far grander and more lofty professionals than I have used this precise reference."
Do you believe it is acceptable to denigrate an entire group of people, Carol? Forget for a minute who the group is or who else has done so. Is it acceptable TO YOU to refer to any group of people in general as "useful idiots"? How do you feel when people refer to Christians as idiots? Personally, I consider it insulting no matter who is being referred to in that manner and no matter who is saying it.
As for your use of the term "useful idiots" in reference to the high percentage of African Americans voting for President Obama, you may have quoted Marx by using that term, but you've continued to ignore historical facts. That 97 percent of African Americans voted for President Obama in 2008 and 93 percent did so in 2012 is not evidence that they are blindly following him because he is African American. Around ninety percent of African Americans have voted for the Democratic candidate for decades now.
"PSSS My reference to fact only not being the sole determinant, had to do with sociology and philosophy. NOT opinion as you seem to have concluded about my statement, but evaluation and interpretation of fact in line with a historical perspective."
Alright. I'll concede that it is technically a value judgment as to what actions by either party have or have not helped African Americans. Today, African Americans can vote. This is a direct result of the Civil Rights Act of 1965, legislation supported by many Democrats outside the traditional South and signed into law by a President who was a Democrat. Those are historical facts. Whether or not extending this right to African Americans is a an value judgment if you want to be technical about it. I think one would be hard pressed to find many who would dispute it.
Again, back to your original comments. You asserted Republicans were the only party throughout history to ever do anything to support African American civil rights. Are you saying the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 did not benefit African Americans or that Democrats had no hand in those pieces of legislation?
You ended by stating, "And, by the way, most attempts to "help" these disenfranchised have failed miserably."
If you examine how African Americans (and women for that matter) have been treated since the founding of this country and compare that to how things are today, how can you say that efforts to improve things have been an abysmal failure? It certainly isn't the conclusion I draw.
"He's not a liberal, he's a
"He's not a liberal, he's a socialist" is as much a demonstration of poor reasoning skills as the statement "I'm not a child molester, I'm an ephebophile! 13 is a teenager, not a child, and there are countries where that's legal! See, big difference!"
Actually, the lowest age of consent in all of Europe is 12 years old - and that's in the Vatican! I guess my example illustration fits the AFA pretty well after all....
The reason the republicans
The reason the republicans took the house was because of an unfortunate turn of events around gerrymandering in many states like Michigan. Michigan's legislature typically flip flops between GOP and DEM. In 2000 when district lines were redrawn, the GOP was in control, skewing many districts. In 2010, the same thing happened, making it worse. This is true in many states.
If you look at the popular vote, more people voted for democrats as a national percentage of the population in the house, the senate, and the president. How then did the GOP lose ground in the senate, which is state based, take control of the house which is district based? Gerrymandering!!!!!!
Strategically this was brilliant, and the GOP maximized the effectiveness of redistricting. It is unfortunate, because the country based on the popular vote should be one party rule - Democrat. Divided government is always gridlock.
Unlike the popular myth among conservatives, the US is centrist and actually leans more left than right. However, the US also respects charismatic people, which is why Reagan was so effective.
The American Family
The American Family Association has recommended & sponsored the most elected politicians who were later arrested for sex crimes than any political group in US history. That's quite a record! Their judgement of human character is obviously askew. Emmett Tyrell Jr has proven he's a fool by writing "The death of Liberalism". Now he's trying to say please buy my book because liberalism is dead. We just have socialists now. If President Obama is a Marxist/Socialist/Communist what does that make Teddy Roosevelt, FDR & LBJ? Their ideas for social reform were far more extreme than Barack Obama's. If the Affordable Healthcare bill is socialist then what does that make Richard Nixon, Bob Dole and Bill Frist who embraced it as far back as the '70's? http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/03/24/the-gops-dirty-health-care-secret.html
This just proves the Right-wing doesn't even know their own history, but that is hardly surprising coming from a Party that only reads re-visionist history myths. The AFA is desperate to find an excuse for Americans rejecting Romney & every Teabagger incumbent in 2012 so they don't have to admit Christian Fundamentalism is just a small minority group within US society now. They were so vocal, they convinced America's most wealthy that they were dominate enough to win the White House & the Senate if given power over the RNC & enough money. They only proved that no amount of money can buy enough votes for policies that would harm 75% of Americans. The Christian Taliban has now become the Republican Party's worst nightmare; a faction that will divide their Party & prevent them from winning national elections for years to come.
Technically that's not true.
Technically that's not true. Had he been white, he would never have even been IN the election to begin with. He was only considered a serious candidate because he was black.
Bullshit. If he had been
Bullshit. If he had been white, Romney would have been lucky to get ANY electoral votes.
Are you really THAT
Are you really THAT delusional? Obama won because he didn't spend the entire election distancing himself from voters through ignorant and elitist comments, he didn't keep the press out of ANY function and he didn't do any secret funding from foreign sources; and that is just to start with. Obama is a person OF the people, not an elitist that wanted to rule over the people like some sort of corporate overlord.
Romney lost because no one could believe him when he would flip-flop/pander for the sake of whichever audience he was speaking to. How can you support someone who is for one thing in front of one audience, yet is opposed to that same thing in front of a different audience?
It could be WHY Romney chose to avoid the talk show circuit, thus keeping his message from the people that wanted to know what it was he had planned for this nation and how he would make the country stronger through continuing the same policies that ruined the country in the first place.
The insanity principle is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. The far right, the far left, vegans, creationists and other extremists believe in the insanity principle, religiously.
LOL - are you as dumb as you
LOL - are you as dumb as you sound? Technically....
Interesting that you have such a high opinion of yourself that you 'think' you can read the minds of all those voters......
Wildmon added: "If it had
Wildmon added: "If it had been a white president running against Mitt Romney, he loses."
Wildman (my spelling) is out of touch with the news and reality. If Obama were white, the only thing different in the outcome would have been a bigger win for Obama. Blacks would have voted for the Democrat in similar numbers/percentages anyway, moderate/non-bigoted whites and others probably would have voted pretty much the same, and some bigoted whites who voted for Romney would have voted for Obama, if he were white.
Without going into details, suffice it to say I generally do not come into contact with overt racism/bigotry in my daily life. One area where I do is when I participate in one of my pastimes. And I'll demure on those details as well so as not to paint an entire group with the same brush. Far and away, most people who share this pastime, and certainly my friends who engage in this pastime with me, are not racists. But I overhear plenty of overt racist remarks, usually directed specifically at Barack Obama, by a representative few of a rightwing, racist fringe subculture. While this is no more than anecdotal based on my experience, I also believe that what I hear and read is representative of a larger number of individuals, many of whom are politically active at least insofar as voting is concerned.
You're so right?? the
You're so right?? the republican party has become a joke!!! these idiot republicans have lost their minds!! If ANY WHITE dem ran against Rommey the margin of victory would have been 10 MILLION VOTES! not 5! republicans didn't vote for Rommey they were voting against Obama "THE BLACK GUY" LMAO republicans have lost their damn minds!!
The republican party has
The republican party has become a national grace!!! their anti black anti hispanic anti woman anti intellectual is so out of control the just can't shut the FU*K up for one second with insulting one all these groups!! the vast majority of the gop are WHITE over 65 and extremely dim witted!! Their great WHITE hope "ROMMEY" got his AS* handed to him by 5 MILLION votes!!! and their other great WHITE hope "McCain & the hillbilly milf got hammered by over 8 MILLION votes!! ENOUGH SAID
There is a good chance Obama
There is a good chance Obama would have lost if he were white. However the "racial dynamic" was on the part of the republicans, not the democrats.
If Obama was white he would not have been subject to the continual "birther" politics, and racism commentary from parts of the republican campaign, e.g. the O-nig and "Don't re-nig". Romney lost the election because he aimed his campaign at affluent white people, and not at the broader American population, whilst at the same time some of his supporters did their best to alienate Hispanics, African Americans, Woman and the low paid.
If republicans want to win the next presidential election, then they need to look at their methods, and field a candidate that appeals to the broader American population, not just white Christians. This will be difficult considering Hilary Clinton looks like she will be the next democrat candidate.
It is the democrat marketing
It is the democrat marketing machine that has perpetuated the lie. The Republican party IS the party of the middle class, not at all elitist in nature. The democrat party contains more wealthy by far (you notice it has no problem raising the capital for campaigns); additionally, most of the poor belong.
The wealthy democrats (Jews, big business, etc.) have tremendous "white guilt" and vote for entitlements (for kick-backs) but also to assuage their guilt for NOT contributing more of their dollars to help the poor (notice the $4 million contribution from Romney vs. the $1000 from BO).
The democrat party has perpetuated so many myths which are not true including the fact the it is the Republicans who have ACTUALLY been the friend of the black man (google Rev. Wayne Perryman's lawsuit against BO/democrats for falsifying history--he's black by the way!).
ALL the Republicans need is a marketing machine...they have the facts, the "heart", the Constitution, and the Bible behind them. Now disseminating and articulating this to an under-educated populace is what is required so that a democrat/socialist/progressive/communist/marxist will NEVER be elected again in America!
carol - you are so wrong on
carol - you are so wrong on so many levels it would take a book.
Lets just say you are a heartless hypocritical CHINO and let it go at that.
Don't you ever get tired of
Don't you ever get tired of drinking republican KOOL AID???? I 'm bet you were one of those idiot phony christian MILLION MOM clowns that protested J C Penny over Ellen!! your phony christian beliefs are boring!! the school of Jerry Falwell makes normal minded people ill!! your idiot post aren't buying you brownie points for heaven lol
Carol -> once again, you have
Carol -> once again, you have it wrong. The GOP has 60% of the governorships, more state legislatures, and other seats in state government. The dollars spent were higher for Obama, but not enough to change the outcome of the election. The GOP is out of step with the MAJORITY of americans. See my post above whey the GOP still has control of the house, but lost ground in the senate.
Unfortunately, it is going to decades of redistricting to undo the gerrymandering damage done by the GOP. When this flips back, and it will eventually, the dems will probably have control of congress for several decades thereafter.
You are a deluded ideologue who wouldn't know the truth if it stepped up kissed you on the mouth.
The GOP especially after the rise of the Tea Party has alienated every age group on some level. It will come back to haunt them again in 2014.
Actually, the under-educated
Actually, the under-educated are exactly the people you want to target if you're using Bible based arguments. The well-educated are less likely to believe such fairy tale nonsense.
Carol, you claim that
Carol, you claim that Democrats are wealthier than Republicans yet you admit the Romney campaign spent millions more on the 2012 election than Obama did. As a matter of fact, the Romney campaign spent more than a billion dollars on his Presidential run. Far more than any candidate has ever spent, but since the RNC platform only represented 24% of Americans they could not buy enough votes. Your problem is that you are in that 24%. You are very happy with the RNC platform, as are other religious fundamentalists, but your kind are no longer hold a majority in this country. Its simple mathematics. Christian extremists will have to be content to dominate local city, state & county elections. Thanks to the "Citizen's United" Supreme Court decision (which the GOP backed) candidates for Congress can now be financially sponsored by nation PAC money. That means Boehner, McConnell & other obstructionists' days are numbered. 2012 already saw the mass purge of Tea Party fanatics.
Most Americans voted for President Obama because he is a CENTRIST. You haven't experienced a liberal in the White House yet! Now that the GOP is being torn apart between the Tea Party fanatics & tradition libertarian Republicans it will be easier for the Democratic Party to actually nominate a far-left candidate in 2016, but most Democrats are moderates. Unfortunately for you & the religious right, Obama IS what this nation now considers "moderate". If we actual do elect another FDR or LBJ I'm afraid your kind will be speechless, since you already used your most inflammatory criticism on President Obama. Lol.
Gem, Romney gave $4 million
Gem,
Romney gave $4 million to CHARITY and BO gave a few thousand...YOU misquote me.
God Bless!
did he really? Well, let's
did he really? Well, let's see those tax returns so we can be sure! Oh, that's right - he would never release his returns as every other candidate has for decades... maybe one of the reasons was so uninformed morons like yourself could make up such lies as this one and no one could have any proof one way or the other.... You should quit while you're ahead....
@carol listens to Rush
@carol listens to Rush Limbaugh and FUX news way too much!! chances are she doesn't even know the difference between communism, socialism, marxism because researching facts are totally against her phony christian religion reality. it's terrible how the republicans southern strategy has brainwashed weak minded bible thumpers!!
The American Family
The American Family Association needs to be officially labeled a racist hate group, and they need to be taken off the air for voicing objectionable and derogatory comments about the election and the race of our President. This is bogus nonsense that has no place in civil society in the 21st Century.
AMEN!! look what it did to
AMEN!! look what it did to @carol lol poor lost pharisee lol
AMEN!! look what it did to
AMEN!! look what it did to @carol lol poor lost pharisee lol
Yeah, these people are
Yeah, these people are racebaiting idiots.
"How do you know so much about everything?'" was asked of a very wise and intelligent man; and the answer was "By never being afraid or ashamed to ask questions as to anything of which I was ignorant." - John Abbott (1821-1893)
New Flash: African americans
New Flash: African americans always vote in the majority for democrats.
CRW, "New Flash: African
CRW,
"New Flash: African americans always vote in the majority for democrats." And how foolish this is:
1-Margaret Sanger formed Planned Parenthood to abort black babies and democrats are the ONLY supporters of this organization (more black babies are aborted by this organization than ANY OTHER in history!)
2-Black civil rights issues THROUGHOUT history have been supported ONLY by the Republicans (Rev. Wayne Perryman has filed a lawsuit AGAINST the democrat party and BO for the lies they have told about who has historically supported blacks--he is black by the way!).
The under-education of blacks in this country has rendered them "useful idiots" for the illegitimate democrat party and their immoral purposes. God Bless!
@Carol After the 1964 rights
@Carol
After the 1964 rights act and through the early 1970's there was a dramatic shift of southern racist democrats who then became republicans. Jessie Helms and Strom Thurmond ring a bell?
Neither party has a spotless record. However, if you look at the parties TODAY, clearly the democratic party does a better job of trying to address ongoing civil rights and poverty issues.
When you have people like Paul Ryan holding up people like Ayn Rand as heroes, I can't believe anyone would ever vote for a whacko like that. Rand was an atheist, against all forms of public assistance except voluntary giving, and would essentially strip the government to nothing. I can't believe social conservatives like Ryan praise her???
Anachronistic references don't help your cause. Everyone in office when Sanger was alive is now dead, and everyone in office when the 1964 civil rights act passed is now out of office. Parties turn over.
Structural poverty related to historical racism has been one of the toughest problems to beat for black america. No one in either party has had an idea that has worked well. There are some clues like excellent early education, but these programs cost money, and would be opposed by today's tea party based GOP.
CRW, Rev. Wayne Perryman is
CRW,
Rev. Wayne Perryman is black (just as a point of reference!): http://www.federalobserver.com/2011/09/14/blacks-file-class-action-racial-discrimination-suit-against-obama-democrats/.
Check your facts against this...God Bless!
@Carolandv "1-Margaret Sanger
@Carolandv
"1-Margaret Sanger formed Planned Parenthood to abort black babies and democrats are the ONLY supporters of this organization (more black babies are aborted by this organization than ANY OTHER in history!)"
Margaret Sanger died in 1966. Abortion was not legal in the US until 1973.
Sanger was a nurse. What she *actually* did was work to legalize contraception in response to seeing so many women die from self-induced abortions.
Democrats are not the only supporters of Planned Parenthood.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/29/defunding-planned-parenthood-polls_n_913685.html
"2-Black civil rights issues THROUGHOUT history have been supported ONLY by the Republicans."
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson (Democrat). President John F Kennedy (Democrat) fought for this legislation but died before seeing it passed.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson (Democrat). This act outlawed discriminatory voting practices that were responsible for widespread disenfranchisement of African Americans.
Robert F Kennedy (Democrat) Orval Faubus (Democrat) FDR (Democrat)
I could go on for quite a long time, but you can easily discover a long list of Democrats who have been instrumental in fighting for African American civil rights issues.
"The under-education of blacks in this country has rendered them "useful idiots" for the illegitimate democrat party and their immoral purposes."
What's your educational background, Carol?
Savannah, Rev. Wayne Perryman
Savannah,
Rev. Wayne Perryman (he is black just as a point of reference!): http://www.federalobserver.com/2011/09/14/blacks-file-class-action-racial-discrimination-suit-against-obama-democrats/.
Check your historical facts here...God Bless!
Savannah, LOL - "What's your
Savannah, LOL - "What's your educational background, Carol?"
Excellent post. But Carol doesn't want to or can't understand the real world.
btw, facebook or twitter (not a member/user myself but shown on OV) refers to her as a prolific poster, and her age is alluded to as something like 70 or 80 (a little disconnect between her high school yearbook avatar and her current age. She has virtually no grasp of history, fact, or reality, and believes what she writes with her heart and soul.
carol has no heart - CHINO.
carol has no heart - CHINO.
According to her facebook
According to her facebook page, she graduated from High School in 1962. This would make her somewhere between 67 and 70. She lives in North Dakota, one of the great intellectual centers in the US... :P
@canislupis I actually wasn't
@canislupis
I actually wasn't trying to be rude to Carol, I sincerely wondered about her educational background. While people like her frustrate me beyond words, I do try to be polite (not always successful, so emphasis on try).
Savannah, Actually, the other
Savannah,
Actually, the other poster is confusing me with someone else...I live in that bastion of liberalism, Hollywood. And I am nowhere near that age...my picture is recent and was taken about 2 years ago.
I have advanced degrees, have been multi-published under a nom de plume and I am a researcher. So, while I might frustrate you, I am literate, educated, and polite.
One's opinion is an integral part of one's being and is a product of our own history, education, open mind, and research. Learning continues for a lifetime and if we are Blessed, our knowledge can be of a prophetic nature.
God Bless!
no one believes you...
no one believes you...
Carol, Opinion is one thing,
Carol,
Opinion is one thing, ignoring facts that are in opposition to your stated opinion is another.
I am interested in your opinions. They are not what frustrate me. What I find frustrating is seeing you cite "facts" that are not fact and blatantly ignoring it when someone demonstrates you are incorrect.
For example, in a previous comment you said,
"1-Margaret Sanger formed Planned Parenthood to abort black babies and democrats are the ONLY supporters of this organization (more black babies are aborted by this organization than ANY OTHER in history!)"
Your comments about Sanger are verifiably not true as I pointed out to you in a previous post.
You went on to say, "2-Black civil rights issues THROUGHOUT history have been supported ONLY by the Republicans"
This too is verifiably incorrect as I pointed out in a previous post. CRW did so as well.
You completely ignored our responses.
Instead of addressing the inaccuracies of your statements, you simply again referenced Perryman in a way that seems to imply that since he is African American, there can be no disputing his position. What does his being African American have to do with the validity of his argument? An African American person cannot be wrong about African American issues? That's the equivalent of saying you and I cannot be incorrect about issues that effect women. One of us has to be, because we are clearly on opposing sides on a couple of them.
Which facts on the site you listed (http://www.federalobserver.com/2011/09/14/blacks-file-class-action-racial-discrimination-suit-against-obama-democrats/ ) support your allegations that:
1. Sangor was all about killing babies?
2. Democrats are the ONLY people who support Planned Parenthood?
3. That Republicans alone are the sole defenders of African American civil rights?
Those are the facts you allegedly supported by linking to the site about his lawsuit so please, help me by demonstrating where on that site you find verification for your statements.
As for Perryman's lawsuit, much of it is in my opinion ridiculous. Apparently, his suit states, "Unlike other reparations lawsuits, this lawsuit merely asks for a public apology, but no monetary damages."
He wants the court to force people to apologize for something they themselves haven't done? Much of his case is requesting an apology for something that happened 150 years or more ago.
The article about Perryman goes on to say, "Any organization that has such a racist history and receives 97% of the African American vote (after doing all they could to deny blacks the right to vote), should willingly apologize without being forced do so through a lawsuit. He said, 'I guess they feel they have nothing to apologize for.'"
I believe one could legitimately consider the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 apologies. Unlike meaningless words offered at the order of some Judge (which I cannot see ever happening), those Acts actually *mean something*. They changed peoples' lives.
Where is his lawsuit against the Republican party for all the tricks they used to change voting laws in swing states right before the last election? Changes that clearly (or would have had the court not intervened in some situations) disenfranchised many African Americans?
As for the comments about you personally, I do not care if your photo is up to date. It does not matter to me if you are 100 or 20. While you may be published and hold advanced degrees, you blatantly disregard any FACT that does not conform to your world view. In my opinion, degrees and publishing contracts really mean nothing if you are unable to accept verifiable truth when it is presented to you.
By the way, when you said, "The under-education of blacks in this country has rendered them "useful idiots" for the illegitimate democrat party and their immoral purposes. God Bless!", I was appalled.
That you lumped an entire race of people into one category and labeled them "useful idiots" is racist by any definition of the word. That you added "God Bless" after your racist statement is - I can't even think of a nice word to describe that.
If you intend to reply to me, would you please extend me the courtesy of responding to my entire post rather than pulling out one obscure comment and ignoring the "meat" of the post?
Savannah, When an (nearly)
Savannah,
When an (nearly) entire race votes 97% and then 93% for a man who looks like them, these numbers are statistically impossible for reasons of ideology only. History has shown our political agenda to be going the way of Stalin's Russia and Hitler's Germany where the populace were disenchanted and wanted change for change's sake. These very charismatic men stepped up to give what was wanted both then and now!
I would site the communist infiltration of our schools, the rise of the popularity of socialism/communism/stalinism et al as proof of a far left agenda that the democrats (a fair number of them) have little to no knowledge of. The democrat party has been hijacked along with our schools, our under-educated minorities, and the remaking of our traditions and laws in the name of "political correctness".
Far from being "racist" as you seem to want to call me, I am calling for the education of the many who voted without any facts. I use as example the Howard Stern interviews of BO supporters in Harlem (he is a liberal by the way, and I mention this to show no bias): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeJbOU4nmHQ. Stating the facts cannot be called racist though statistically it would appear to support the issue of the African-American contingent to be JUST THAT: They would be casting a vote explicitly for RACIST reasons.
The hijacking of a party for the sake of undue influence can only be accomplished with much planning:
1-removal of God and a strict immutable morality 2-removal of a husband from the home of minorities 3-subtle but pervasive changes from elementary to college in school curriculum 5-creating financial dependency through entitlement programs (FOR GENERATIONS) 6-changing the immigration climate to focus on 3rd world immigrants 7-creating a color and class warfare 8-creating not a melting pot but "multi-culturalism" as the defining attitude of immigrants 9-allowing more than English only in an English-speaking country 10-permitting unchallenged "this is not a Judeo-Christian" country to stand.
Republicans do NOT select out blacks/Mexicans to defend them because THEY ARE COLOR-BLIND. The new democrat party selects out these groups to US THEM, APPEAL TO THEM SPECIFICALLY (this is RACISM), AND TARGET THEM FOR THEIR VOTE.
Star Parker discusses this "vote-purchase" in her book, Uncle Sam's Plantation (she is from LA's Watts and is black, again I mention this to show no bias). When educated black-Americans can see the hypocrisy in the democrat party, why can't you?? Can Rev. Jesse Peterson, Colonel Allen West, Mia Love, Lloyd Marcus, and others be just flat wrong??
You seem to think that ONLY FACTS can support the truth!! The undercurrent (not reported by the liberal press but none-the-less valid) is showing a country on the brink of failure. Yes, the usage of the undereducated (of all colors) lemmings by those at the top with the tools, the desire, and the money IS APPALLING!
This is RACISM, THIS IS USURY, THIS IS TRAGIC, AND THIS IS REAL! Please read with an open heart, hear the message of history, and look for the undercurrent of a hijacking. I have no issue with you, because I believe YOU are seeking the truth. Unfortunately, you are looking in the wrong direction for this.
The Civil rights acts you mention was OPPOSED BY THE DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS (Eastland and Smith). It only passed as a result of supportive Republicans in congress though many democrats opposed it (not including the president who wanted it to pass--both Kennedy and Johnson). However, Johnson also put into action the "babies for dollars" entitlement which has destroyed the Black community.
You also mention the voting which would "...change voting laws in swing states right before the last election? Changes that clearly (or would have had the court not intervened in some situations) disenfranchised many African Americans?" Is it too difficult to provide identification to vote??? Is this prejudicial in asking this or is it YOUR opinion that certain ethnic groups are incapable of producing identification??? The latter opinion would definitely be RACIST...again the use of "incapable" as if they are children in need of help.
If you separate out any group as in Affirmative Action (a liberal go-to program), you're saying that a group is "incapable". When you lump everyone together and do NOT look at color you are being a Republican...and as it should be!
I pray I have answered the majority of your questions...there is just so much more that doesn't meet the eye at first glance and I haven't the time to do as much justice as I would like.
PS You wondered at my history, so I complied with some information and to correct the misinformation from the other poster. Understand that I am a conservative, that I do research for a living, and odds on I find answers and though they might conflict with a certain view, I would definitely integrate them in my positioning. The additional info about the Civil Rights Acts shows that there is more beneath the surface of YOUR comment. Life is just not as simple as "change"...we need to "change" in a positive direction! God Bless!